Abhisit's reform plan falls into black hole
The caretaker cabinet must resign in order to pave the way for a 'neutral' interim government to launch a reform campaign. That is the main proposal of party leader Abhisit, who has held talks with key figures over the past week in an attempt to break the political deadlock.
On Saturday, Abhisit launched his nine-point plan, but – as was to be expected – it was immediately sent to the trash: the UDD and two ministers don't like it. Former government party Pheu Thai has announced that it wants to study the plan first. She will respond on Tuesday. Prime Minister Yingluck has taken note of it, but does not want to comment.
Abhisit says his plan aims to prevent the loss of further lives and a possible military coup, and not to involve the king in the conflict. He assumes that the implementation of the most important reforms will take a year and a half. Elections should be held six months later, not in July as the Electoral Council and government have provisionally agreed.
According to Abhisit, all parties benefit from his plan. The government would have clear preconditions for future elections and would be able to campaign in the run-up to them without disruption from opponents.
The protest movement also benefits from the plan, because it will have a neutral government. Only the (appointed) Reform Council it desires is composed in a different way. Abhisit's conclusion: The country as a whole benefits from his proposal because there will be elections and reforms, not a coup and because there will be no deaths.
Impractical, undemocratic, unconstitutional
Foreign Minister Surapong Tovichakchaikul called the proposal to form a neutral interim government 'impractical' and 'undemocratic'. According to him, the population will never accept it.
Minister Chaturon Chaisaeng (Education) is equally dismissive. The demand for Yingluck to resign and allow the Senate President to choose a neutral prime minister is "unconstitutional" and "harmful to democratic principles."
UDD chairman Jatuporn Prompan calls the plan 'contrary to basic democracy' and 'impossible to implement'.
For the protest movement, Abhisit's plan, regardless of what talks between him and the government lead to, is no reason to stop its rallies.
Spokesperson Akanat Promphan admits that some of Abhisit's proposals are in line with those of the protest movement. But, he says: The responsibility lies with the political parties. They must discuss and try to reach an agreement. "If the government doesn't agree, national reforms are unlikely."
(Source: Website Bangkok Post, May 5, 2014)
Abhisit et al. are wrong not to include in its deliberations and planning that the Pheu Thai will never accept that the Yingluck cabinet will withdraw completely, resp. disappears from the political scene, even more than she has already done, namely to declare herself outgoing.
Pheu Thai cs are wrong not to take more time for their reactions, to reject Abhisit's plans in advance, and not to judge Abhisit's considerations on their merits.
Both camps have thus strengthened the stalemate. Both camps continue to yell at each other, and both camps prevent Thailand from working towards a solution to the political conflict.
If you're talking about reform, learn what it means to share power. The fact that all parties are out to acquire a monopoly on power, as is customary in Thai relations for ever, is the biggest stumbling block. People are still based on oligarchic principles. As long as these kinds of 'mind-sets' cannot be pushed into the background, consensus is not possible.
Thaksin is and remains a businessman and he simply wants his seized money back one way or another. This is done by deploying family members in important positions that can be of use to him. Here in Thailand it is not about democratic politics but simply about power (as far as I understand it).
Agree with Soi that both camps are not eager to come to a joint solution. I am somewhat afraid that a coup may take place because at the moment there is nothing to indicate that indicates understanding for each other's points of view, unfortunately I can say. Where there's a will there's a way, but that's not the case here.
If in Thailand they don't first tackle the gigantic corruption and drug crime that is intertwined everywhere and in the entire business community, including among the farmers, which I experience myself, then nothing will ever happen in Thailand. Possession of weapons also falls under this, because this really gets out of hand, as does public drunkenness. Thai people don't take any responsibility for their behavior, especially when they're drunk, which I experienced just yesterday in front of my house, when my wife was playing cards and my hubby was getting his fill at a Buddha party. Both got into a fight about the lost money. Hubby came home drunk to get the gun. Fortunately, it was limited to three shots in the air, wife and three children (between 3 and 13) were unharmed for the time being.
First take a hard-handed approach to this, so that they have the fear in their legs to even think about it.
If you have this in order in Thailand, the country can recover. Now they're chasing all the big companies out of the country to Burma, which is geographically ideally placed, and they're never coming back.
And this can sometimes be the death knell for Thailand, but yes they did it themselves.
The court sidelined Yingluck's government. Much evidence of corruption by Yingluck's government has been found, enough to declare the cabinet outgoing and await a court ruling.
All Yingluck advocates condone these corrupt cases.
If there is no longer any understanding for the court's rulings, as is the case with many Red Shirt leaders and supporters, then it is logical that they will never agree to any solution (without corruption).
I think Abhasit's plan is a very good plan and I'm actually curious to see which blog readers also think this is a very good plan.
Greetings from Danny
I completely agree Danny and I also think that this can be a step towards a normal Thai political situation.
@ubon1: Abhisit's plans cannot by definition be a step towards normalization of the Thai political situation, if only for the fact that the plans do not take into account the resentment of the other party. No plan is good if it does not invite the other party to dialogue. See their response: http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/politics/408262/govt-tipped-to-reject-abhisit-plan.
In an op-ed in the May 5 Bangkok Post (http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/408051/the-big-issue-tick-tock), states that the NACC has so far found no evidence of corruption.
Danny apparently has very good sources at the NACC to argue otherwise.
And the Abhisit plan doesn't stand a chance: even good shepherd Suthep ignores it. The plan seems more like a desperate attempt by the Oxford Boy (with British nationality) to get back into politics.
@ Bunnag luukey You write that the NACC has so far found no evidence of corruption, according to the author of the piece you quote. That is a very free interpretation of the sentence between brackets: although it has not, so far, identified any actual corruption. It does not say that the committee has found no evidence or proof of corruption. How could the author know that anyway? Everything he writes is already known from the news coverage; he has no resources of his own.
The NACC says it has evidence and has already decided to prosecute fifteen people, including two former ministers.